Sticking strictly to most recent times, and London particularly, we’ve seen a number of ‘alleged’ terror attacks.

Finsbury Park Mosque Attack – Aftermath

Just the other day we saw another one, when a white man, Darren Osborne, drove a white van at a crowd of non-white Muslims outside the Finsbury Mosque.

Regardless of who did what to whom, when, and where… it’s all disgusting, reprehensible, criminal behavior.

Candle Vigil following the Manchester Attack

An odd phenomenon that has not been missed by many of the astute social media followers of such events is that, almost without fail, the moment an attack occurs, out comes — almost hand-in-hand with the “It has nothing to do with Islam” chant pushed out by politicians and the media — immediate calls for candlelit peace vigils, and the spreading of “the love”, along with calls from politicians saying we must unite, we must remain calm, we must move on.

Love For All Vigil — If only it was enough

Twitter and Facebook almost sink under the calls for prayers and pop concerts. But I reckon it’s all enough peace, love and brown rice to make one sick.

We may even get told that “Terrorism is a part of everyday life,” so we ought get used to it.

We also get told, when terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, that “It’s not all Muslims.” We’re also told to watch ourselves because our criticisms and challenges and questions are all deeply and unapologetically and indefensibly ‘Islamophobic’.

So how is that, right now, things don’t play in reverse? How come there aren’t warnings against people getting all “white-o-phobic?”

Why aren’t we allowed to respond to this despicable act in the same way we’re told to respond to Islamic-related acts?

Why can’t we just light candles, send prayers, and go to pop concerts?

Why can’t we shout at Muslims “Not all whites?” Why aren’t prayers and tweets enough? More than enough?

I’m White

Why can’t I ask not to be harassed and stereotyped? Isn’t that what Muslims get to do following “Not all Muslims; Nothing to do with Islam” terror events?

And when I say they “get to do,” I’m also referring to the mass support they get from apologists, politicians and the MSM [mainstream media].

I’m gonna add my bit here, which is something I posted recently in response to the Finsbury mosque incident. That way there’ll be no confusion as to where I stand, or whether I can be accused of condoning it:

“What we so often hear is that the West is responsible for Islamic terrorism. That they are simply fighting back.

“While that’s not true, let’s say it is. The same logic must then apply here.

“Doesn’t condone anything. But it does rely on the exact same circumstances.

“Tommy Robinson has repeatedly said, as have many others, that the risk exists that if spineless governments don’t take the necessary steps, militias will be formed and the people will fight back. Including the lunatics like the one in this incident.”

Twits like J.K. Rowling and Lily Allen, among countless others, have recently come out blaming the tabloids for fuelling Islamophobia and inciting more acts of terrorism.

Well, if that lack of logic is allowed to stand, so, too, should it be applied here: If the twits among us keep hating on this Finsbury incident as being an atrocious act of ‘white terrorism’, will they not be responsible for inciting more of the same?

“There’s only one way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before.”

Nothing like this sort of advice to rely on in times of trouble

I’m Sure You Get the Point:

After EVERY terrorist attack, we’re told the same old denial, apologetic stories, along with the recommended responses.

So why change that now?

All the foot stomping that people like you and I have done in the past hasn’t brought one iota of change or rationale to the argument. Yet, somehow, the Finsbury Mosque incident is… different? Go figure.

Before I Get Called Out

Darren Osborne’s arrest immediately following his attack on the Finsbury Park Mosque

Am I outraged about a man driving a van into people? No. I don’t do outrage.

Am I pissed about it? Appalled, disgusted? Yes.

Is he a so-called lone wolf? I suppose. Maybe. I don’t know for sure but it looks that way.

Did he do it in the name of a superstitious cult at the behest of a great sky fairy? Well, unlike Islamists, no.

Did he do it as a direct result of spineless governments doing nothing to prevent Islamic terror on non-Islamic soil? Well, in combination with the quite likely serious mental health issues, it certainly seems that way. And I guess if it’s true that he shouted “I want to kill more Muslims” that then speaks for itself.

So, because I’m not a hypocrite, I think this fuckwit’s behavior is just as fucked as the fuckwit behavior of those fuckwits who incite and enact Islamic-based acts of fucking terror. There, I’ve said it.

Equating/Conflating — Not the Same

I find, like you no doubt do, that this whole game of equating — CONFLATING — this van driver with the entire mechanism of the war machine that is Islamic Jihad, is nothing short of intellectually dishonest.

It’s called selective outrage: Duck and dive every incident of Islamic terror, but focus on and amplify out of all proportion any and all incidents that directly or indirectly target Muslims.

Unfettered hypocrisy is yet another way to describe it.

It is no small irony that people like you and I are mislabelled and shouted down as ‘Islamophobes’ by deadshits properly labelled as Islamophiles.

“This is a terrorist attack. The perpetrator is a white terrorist. We need to say these things out loud, as much as possible.”

Charles Clymer: “This Is a Terrorist Attack” Who said it wasn’t?

Riiight.

Have you ever wondered how many people out there are not seeing the double standards?

I mean, really… Islamic related murders are excused, with candles, while those of us who point out the overwhelming and obvious evidence are called racists.

Yet now it’s ‘okay’ to insist that the van driver of the Finsbury attack be clearly labelled and called out by his skin color. As ‘Ali Official’ did on Twitter (June 18 2017):

“Mainstream media, call it what it is! The #FinsburyPark attack was TERRORISM by a TERRORIST. Don’t downplay the incident because he’s white.”

Ali Official: “Call It What It Is” Exactly who’s downplaying this?

No doubt it also hasn’t escaped you that when Islamic terrorist attacks occur, those of us who call out hate preachers are quickly labelled as Muslim haters. They very quickly call for people like Tommy Robinson to be arrested. But never — NEVER — do they call for Islamic hate preachers to be deported.

I hate to point out the obvious here, but I just have to insist that it’s in print:

“Hate preachers actively call for violence. You and I actively call to end it.” Spot the difference.

For the record, Louis Farrakhan calls Judaism “A gutter religion.” He blames slavery on Christianity. And called Adolf Hitler “great.”

The list of Khan’s links go on.

So, comrades, we need to talk about this. If politicians don’t implement legal steps to combat Islamic terrorism; if the media don’t stop lying; if apologists and deniers don’t stop facilitating acts of terror by shouting down the rest of us… then people, of the unhinged variety, are going to take matters into their own hands.

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Terrorism: Why Candles Won’t Do It”

sadiq is a despicable and disgusting creature. when interviewed by pierce morgan and asked if the 400 jihadists that had come back to london from fighting for isis overseas were being monitored..sadiq replied that there were just nit enough police to follow them…and now after finsbury he’s demanding police be placed outside mosques…??!!….. i guess muslim lives take priority over anybody elses life to him. scumbag.